Despite what other people in this thread incorrectly concluded, the men eating fatty fish had a higher all-cause mortality rate than those not advised.

EDIT:
Also, you may not have seen this in my previous post because it was added as a late edit, but chestnuts are starchy, not fatty.

Elliot - the study's own abstract noted no statistical correlations to all cause mortality. As I have previously pointed out to you.
Please either refute my statements with your own summary of the evidence at hand or let this study go. As it appears to say nothing in support of your cause.

So again and again and again. I'll give you PREDIMED.......what else do you have?

The abstract says:
All-cause mortality was not reduced by either form of advice

This does not mean that all-cause mortality remained the same. It means it was not reduced. All-cause mortality actually increased for those eating fish. The actual numbers are:

Those advised to eat fish: 141 deaths out of 764 people, or 18.5%
Those advised to eat fish and fruit/oats: 142 deaths out of 807 people, or 17.6%
The control group: 109 deaths out of 764 people, or 14.3%

Those eating fish had a higher mortality rate.

Yes, those taking fish oil had a higher mortality rate than those eating whole fish. But both experienced elevated mortality rates relative to the control group. The numbers are:

Those assigned to eat whole fish: 198 deaths out of 1109, or 17.85%
Those assigned to take fish oil: 85 deaths out of 462, or 18%

PREDIMED doesn't impress me. Adding nuts and olive oil to the diets of an already diseased, aging, free-living population slightly improves some measures of vascular health but not others and ultimately has no effect on all-cause mortality.

Compare all-cause mortality in the nut and olive oil groups. The olive oil group had a lower all-cause mortality rate. Also, PREDIMED is not the only reason to discard nuts; it's the only trial that specifically studied the effect of nuts on mortality. Polyunsaturated fat is the larger issue, in my opinion.

It studied the effect of nuts on mortality in an already aging and diseased population with increasing medication use over time, and ultimately the difference in health and mortality between all the groups was very small.

The abstract says:
All-cause mortality was not reduced by either form of advice

This does not mean that all-cause mortality remained the same. It means it was not reduced. All-cause mortality actually increased for those eating fish. The actual numbers are:

Those advised to eat fish: 141 deaths out of 764 people, or 18.5%
Those advised to eat fish and fruit/oats: 142 deaths out of 807 people, or 17.6%
The control group: 109 deaths out of 764 people, or 14.3%

Those eating fish had a higher mortality rate.

Yes, those taking fish oil had a higher mortality rate than those eating whole fish. But both experienced elevated mortality rates relative to the control group. The numbers are:

Those assigned to eat whole fish: 198 deaths out of 1109, or 17.85%
Those assigned to take fish oil: 85 deaths out of 462, or 18%

LOL!

Total Twaddle sir: You know well enough that this range of variation is way to low be statistically valid.

The abstract summary stands: No affect on all cause mortality

The study remains rejected as evidence in support of your statement: 'I'm arguing against nuts' It doesn't even say anything in regard to your assertion that even whole food sources of Pufa, such as that contained in many nuts, are in any way harmful. It doesn't even raise any valid concern over the intake of fish oil.